“Gas tax repeal headed for ballot as money about to flow for road repairs”

“Massive cost overruns threaten to derail the bullet train. Here's what has to change”

“San Diego's infrastructure funding gap grows by $310M”

“SANDAG slow out the gate on $200 million bike lane network”

It would be nice for the federal government to ride to the rescue. A draft of the president’s infrastructure plan surfaced last week and it includes an eye-popping, but curious $1.5 trillion figure.

Surely, it would seem, a decent chunk of that would come to the nation’s largest state and a fair portion to that state’s second-largest city. The president briefly mentioned the plan Tuesday in his State of the Union address, but details have not been formally unveiled. What has been revealed raises skepticism that a federal windfall is on the way.

For one thing, the $1.5 trillion is a mirage.

State and local governments would be on the hook to come up with a larger-than-usual pot of matching funds to reach that total under Trump’s proposal. That would be more difficult now that local funds we were expecting will come up very short.

“The administration is expected to propose that the federal government spend $200 billion over the next 10 years while leveraging the rest of the money for projects from both local governments and the private sector. The leaked infrastructure document specifies that awards cannot exceed 20 percent of the total cost of a project.

“This flips the script on how highways are usually built — with 80 percent federal funding and 20 percent local.”

The change in matching funds is alarming, but here’s what really needs to be emphasized: They’re only talking about $200 billion in federal dollars.

Further, the administration wants 25 percent of the total to go to rural areas — no urban/suburban gridlock there — and no individual state would receive more than 10 percent of the total amount available.

Though usually allied with the chamber, Republicans are likely to balk at any tax, gas or otherwise. Democrats, while more amenable to taxes, already have criticized the plan for relying too much on local government and private funding.

Figuring out what transportation will be like in 10 years can be tricky, let alone several decades into the future. You can figure there will be autonomous cars, cars that talk to each other, people movers of some sort…and flying cars. OK, the latter has been part of the American imagination for nearly 100 years. If it ever develops, the flying car will be an expensive, status thing — Tesla-squared? — and not anything that will change the travel mix. But who knows?

Regardless, some sort of roadway and rail system will be needed regardless of the type of vehicle. And on that score, we look to be coming up way short.

Joshua Emerson Smith of the Union-Tribune reported this is the result of several factors. San Diegans are shopping online more and spending a greater amount of income on housing and health care costs than originally projected.

He noted that beyond a decrease in spending on taxable items, the report to the San Diego Association of Governments also found that earlier forecasts overestimated population and income growth.

That just looks at the next five years, “not the city’s long-term infrastructure backlog which has been estimated at roughly $5 billion,” Garrick wrote.

While revenue is shrinking, he noted state storm water mandates and other needs have lengthened the project list.

That drew the ire of La Jolla resident Ted Levis, who said voters were promised that by approving Proposition H, streets and sidewalks would be repaired. Now substantial sums are being spent on storm water requirements.

The shortfall will undercut the city’s ability to fix sidewalks, build bike lanes and maintain parks. It is not expected to affect street paving projects over the next five years. However, a reduction in the state gasoline tax likely would.

A statewide ballot measure is targeted for the November election that would ask voters to repeal the recent gas tax increase of 12 cents per gallon and a hike in auto fees. The increases are expected to raise $54 billion over 10 years.

No one disagrees that the state’s transportation system needs vast improvements. However, leaders of the repeal movement, including San Diego radio talk show host Carl DeMaio, say the state already collects enough taxes to do the job, but needs to spend more wisely. He is particularly critical of past moves to divert fuel tax money to other uses.

As for the bullet train, that will never be finished on time or on budget. Cost overruns have plagued the high-speed rail system from the start. The entire project faces a funding gap of $45 billion at the current price tag of $64 billion, according to the Los Angeles Times. Costs are sure to grow.

The Trump infrastructure plan doesn’t hold much promise to fill these voids. If California gets the full 10 percent, that would be $20 billion. That’s serious money.

But politics always come into play when such funds are divvied up. Keep in mind that the state overwhelmingly voted against Trump and its leaders are battling the administration on several fronts, including immigration, the environment and the legalization of marijuana.